Regal Cinemas Considering New Movie Captioning Technology
By Shane Feldman on Mon 12 Mar 2007 |
Email This Post
Every weekend at some movie theaters, some deaf moviegoers experience loose necks and smudged vision as they and hunker down in their seats during a movie. Nope, no one is making out with the movie watcher, that’s only the deaf person using a Rear Window Captioning (RWC) device.
Deaf people have shared countless stories about their gooseneck which is the name of the device that they put in the cup-holder at their seat that holds up the reflecting window in front of the deaf person. One popular story is where the gooseneck flops down in front of them during the movie. Another is when they describe how they spend more time focusing on adjusting the contraption in front of them during the movie than the action on the screen. Some have vowed that they will never attend a movie theater with RWC again after several frustrating experiences. Not all are ready to strangle the nefarious goosenecks though, some actually embrace it.
In any case, much to the relief of many in the deaf and hard of hearing community, Regal Cinemas has steadfastly supported showing open captioned movies provided through Insight Cinemas. Now Regal Cinemas also offers the DTS-CSS subtitling system, which is a high-tech system that projects captions onto the screen and this is a system that can be turned on or off like the closed captions on TV.
There are three kinds of movie captioning technology today which are currently available to the public: (1) open captions which you cannot turn on or off (currently available through Insight Cinemas), (2) closed captions which you can turn on and off and can be seen by everyone in the auditorium (such as DTS-CSS), and (3) personal captioning devices which provides captioning that can be seen only by the person with specific equipment (like Rear Window Captioning).
Today, open caption movies and movies shown with DTS-CSS caption projection systems are offered only on a limited basis, often on off peak days and during off peak hours– in some cases, these limited showings have created a deaf social event. While a few enjoy these social gatherings, much like Deaf Professional Happy Hours (DPHH), an informal survey would probably reveal their true desire, to see captioned movies anytime, anywhere. That may all change if Regal Cinemas decides to select a new movie captioning technology. And they are thinking about it.
A few weeks ago I went to a small conference held by Regal Cinemas, “Emerging Technologies Symposium.” The groups invited by Regal Cinemas included representatives from different organizations such as the National Association of the Deaf, TDI, Alexander Graham Bell Association of the Deaf, Hearing Loss Association of America, and several others. The Vice President of Regal Cinemas, Randy Smith, explained to us that the company was hosting this event in order to determine whether new captioning technology, now under development, would be accepted by the deaf and hard of hearing community. He also asked us to provide our feedback via surveys at the end of the demonstrations.
The first technology was called Clozed Captions, developed by a company called USL, and it featured a low-lit green board under a movie screen. The creators explained that we would be able to see the captions on the board using glasses that filtered polarized light. Glasses that looked like 3-D glasses from the 1960s-70s were handed out to everyone and an excerpt from the film “Santa Clause 3” rolled.
The captions were black text against the green background and shown by a projector. If you took off your glasses, you wouldn’t see the captions on the screen. In another neat trick I turned the glasses backwards and saw green text against a dark green background. The green-lit board was eerie, I expected some Gremlins to pop out of the board and attack us.
While the captions were a bit difficult to read at first, I would later realize, after trying the next three technologies that Clozed Captions was the most convenient device of the four shown during this Conference. Yet, there were some noticeable issues. For one, the polarized glasses made the movie a bit darker than usual and the colors were not as vibrant. Second, the font was not dark (black) enough that it could be read clearly. In that vein, I also observed that sitting up front makes it much easier to read these captions than sitting in the back. In contrast to RWC, it is the other way around because the RWC screen with the reverse text is located in the back. From an aesthetic standpoint, I felt that the glasses were dorky; surely they can make the glasses more stylish like the sort of polarized glasses I use while fishing.
The most annoying thing about this technology was that the text kept skipping around to the location of the person speaking. This is one problem with hearing people who invent devices for deaf people. The inventors do not realize that we cannot anticipate the next person speaking so we cannot follow the dialogue like spectators at tennis match where they can reasonably anticipate and follow the tennis ball between two players.
The next session, provided by a company called Microvision, brought a crude example of the device that they are developing. This device apparently would allow the moviegoer to wear glasses that look like regular sunglasses and watch captions on the screen. We all had to hold up a small box above our eyes. The box projected a laser towards a reclined glass to display the captions. It was connected by cable to a hefty battery. The captions appeared to be small red laser-like LED lights, similar to the lights used with RWC, which bothered me because I was accustomed to white fonts for captioning. The company also mentioned that their product can be fully adjustable with captions displayed for both eyes plus a host of other options, including the ability to change the color of the captions. While their proposal was exciting, it looks like a long period of R&D before their technology can come to fruition.
InSight Cinemas was surprisingly present and is apparently trying to reinvent itself with a product called SiteLine or SightLine (I will use the former name through the rest of this blog) which is an invention of the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI). Evidently Insight is trying to stay ahead of their competitors. They had the most unique product, out of all four of the shown technologies, that uses a form of optical illusion in order to put the captions on the screen. In fact, this headgear that reminded me of the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode titled “The Game”:
Here’s an actual photo of the system:
The difference between this model and Commander Riker’s model in “The Game” is that the neck from the headgear to the piece in front of the eye is much thicker and second, the piece in front of the eye is a small gray box with a TV screen inside of it. There is only one neck protruding out to the weak eye (the dominant one is the one that watches the movie while the weak eye watches the captioning), and the headgear is connected to a PDA. Hypothetically, there is no effort to shift back and forth between the two screens. It’s supposed to be a natural progression of the optical illusion and I was able to achieve the effect by watching the captions which appeared on the screen even though they were, in reality, centimeters away from my eye.
While the InSight Cinemas product was an ingenious idea, many other people who were at the symposium complained of pounding headaches, nausea, and general discomfort. The 10-minute demo left me somewhat disoriented, which lead me to wonder what a two-hour movie would do to my brain. But I have to give a tremendous amount of credit to InSight Cinemas for coming up with an actual product that works and also for giving the user an impressive array of options to customize their captions. For example, you could choose a “scrolling” caption which would show the older captions grayed out while the newer captions were white. In addition, you could change the color of caption, the color of the background, font size, its justification (left, right, centered).
The final one was eMagin, a company that makes vision devices that are also used by the military and firemen. eMagin’s product seemed to be based on the same technology as Microvision, only the device didn’t have a functional connection to the wireless captioning signal. They had an actual set of glasses through 3DVisor.com which is currently on the market for video game users. Their text was clearer than Microvision’s because it uses white text rather than red lights, and the user could use both eyes to read the captions. The ability to use both eyes in order to read the captions was also critical to my ability to read and watch the movie at the same time, but the goggles were heavier than Microvision’s concept.
Some of the problems with the Microvision, Insight Cinemas, and eMagin products are very similar to RWC. For example, the Insight Cinemas SiteLine gooseneck could loosen over time, the lenses for all devices could become smudged, and there may be an insufficient number of devices at a movie theater which can be a problem. For example, if a theater only has three functional products and a family of four deaf people show up, that will leave out one family member. Another observation about the three high tech devices is that it is impossible for another person to help adjust the captions because the person can’t see what you see. Imagine trying to help your child, grandmother, spouse or friend adjust the device so they can see the captions.
The devices are also pieces of technology that anyone, not necessarily the user himself or herself, could easily steal. The three high-tech devices also looked fragile, they could easily break. These two situations could deprive other deaf people of the movie viewing experience if there are insufficient functional devices at the theater. In contrast to a RWC gooseneck, no one wants to steal it because it is not an attractive decoration for a living room. Finally, another problem with three of these devices, except for the Clozed Caption system, that does not exist with open captions or RWC is that the captions moved around the screen when I moved my head. I disliked this very much because I would prefer the captions stay in one location so I can enjoy the full movie experience.
My vision for an ideal captioning technology, using technology that is currently available, would be to wear glasses like this:
These glasses would be able to decipher code on the screen, where traditional open captions are often placed, to reveal captions that hearing people cannot see like the Clozed Caption technology. Perhaps this could be achieved through a transparent “watermark” on the screen, similar to a subliminal message within the movie. I understand that this kind of “watermark” technology currently exists. Yet, I have been told that movie producers don’t like the idea because it impacts the “clarity” of the film being watched by people who do not see the captions because the transparent watermark seems to impact their viewing experience.
These glasses could be coupled with a wireless handheld device that we can use to modify the font color, size, justification, background color, scrolling or pop-up options, and a host of other customizations for the captions displayed through the glasses. Most importantly, the captions would stay at the bottom of the screen, where they belong, and the screen color and brightness is not affected by the lens. This would not address the problem of smudges, availability of the devices or breakage. Also I don’t know how people with glasses could wear another set of glasses.
Despite the advances by these companies, they are not good enough to replace the existing open captioned/DTS-CSS technology. I applaud Regal Cinemas for asking deaf and hard of hearing consumers to experiment with and provide feedback on new caption display technology. This action is also unprecedented for a chain of movie theaters and I hope they will continue to take the leadership and initiative by providing the deaf community opportunities to attend events, such as the one that I attended. This will help narrow down the preferred choices of technology and provide Regal Cinemas with concrete feedback about the competing technologies.
It is also important to remember that even if the technology is promising, the credo among all deaf and hard of hearing advocates must be “if it’s not good enough for hearing people, then it’s not good enough for us.” Why should the deaf and hard of hearing community be guinea pigs for new technology? The deaf and hard of hearing community should be afforded the same opportunity to determine which technology best works for them.
Some may disagree with me, imploring the community to settle for “better than nothing” but the Rear Window Captioning system is a good example of people settling for “better than nothing.” Let’s encourage and applaud Regal Cinemas for taking new strides to create an equal entertainment field for deaf people, but remind move theaters everywhere that technology that meets the needs of some is not a solution for everyone.
Update: The name of the Insight Cinemas technology is “SightLine”.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
I wear glasses, so I’d be excluded from those products because I don’t know if those are adjustable to fit my glasses. I like the RWC for that reason alone.
I agree with you. They really need to think about those of us who already wear glasses.
Noelle and Lolajl,
Suppose they come up with glasses that fit over your glasses, like:
http://www.sunglassesoverglasses.com/
Or
http://www.polarizedoptics.com.....p?cPath=25
Or
One of those “clip on” glasses that you can attach to your glasses.
Would any one of these options be acceptable?
Those are bulky and awkward. Perhaps others wouldn’t mind them as much as I do, but I always felt distanced from the world because I had so much crap on my face when I wore sunglasses over my glasses.
Walgreen’s and Long’s sell a brand of fit-over sunglasses called Solar Shield. Used to be they only had the humungous “granny glasses” that covered half my face, but now they have a sport version that’s smaller. The fit-over sunglasses now come in sizes Medium and Medium/Large. Practically spiffy. I love mine because they block out more sun than regular sunglasses.
If the movie theaters could invent light, comfortable fit-over glasses that showed the captions on the bottom edge of the screen, with sufficient contrast and from any viewing angle, I could go for that, definitely.
Hmm, whatever is done in the future, I hope they allow deaf people to have input and the final selection in the end. To be forced to use devices invented by hearing people and bought at bidding prices by theaters isn’t going to work.
The only technology that I really like is the open captioned one, or the one that you can switch on for captioning on the screen.
The glasses one, I dunno.. I wear glasses like Noelle. But you know, I’ve found I prefer staying home and watching DVDs with family and friends. It’s a lot more laidback and comfortable for me anyway.
I like the one that can be turned on and off at any time. Say, if a deaf person decides on the spur of moment to attend a movie theater at a certain time, he/she could inform the attendant of the deafness so the attendant can inform the movie person to turn the closed captions on. That way, we are “equal” as others. Simple.
DTS is a bit trickier than just “turning on and off.” They have DTS here in L.A. at the Mann Theatres, and they’ve had some problems. For one thing, if the DTS equipment hasn’t been used in some time, then they have to be turned on and left running to “warm up” for a while (not as simple as turning on your decoder, or pressing the cc button on your remote!). The theater staff didn’t understand (or know about) this, and it resulted in some unhappy customers sitting in a non-captioned film that was supposedly captioned.
I personally prefer open-captioned films, although I will admit using RWC means I can sometimes go to see a movie just days after it opens, compared with waiting a couple weeks (or more) for an open-captioned movie. There’s a bit more flexibility in showtime availability too with RWC.
Nothing’s perfect- but as Shane’s blog points out, more technology is being experimented with, and as Scott Van Nice stated, Regal, among others, are willing to try to accomodate our needs, even if it still isn’t fully equal access.
Do not support RCW concepts for deaf-blind. Also, like DTS captions- however, the font size should be little larger in this case.
[…] In America, it’s a slightly different story. They have RWC - Rear Window Captioning - which hasn’t arrived in the UK yet. Posted by funnyoldlife Filed in Access, Communication […]
Regal Cinema (movie-captioning Regal locations can be found on their website) recently started using DTS technology and now the letters are getting difficult to read on the movie screen against same colored backgrounds. This is supposed to minimize any captioning inteference to the overall audience, dominated by those who don’t need captioning, and yet the situation is already being minimized as to the showings take place (once during business hours and once at 10:30 at night). I’m wondering what the point is. What else is going to be minimized?
What if the dialogues were pivotal to understanding the movie and I can’t read the captions. Its now a frustrating experience and with blockbuster movies coming up this summer, I’m kind of ambivalent about the movie going experience.
Anyone know if “300″ is captioned?!
Ugh! I hate RWC! Spent half an hour adjusting that thigamagic, rubbernecking and losing track of the movie. Before walking out of the theatre, someone at the service desk gave me a complimentary ticket to come back. I gave it to a friend to try out. No need for me to return. That one pitiful experience was enough!
oh, one more thing…as for those other “thought up” devices for our heads - eyeglasses, etc - what were they thinking? I don’t want anything on my head anymore the other patrons do. Grimy!
I am extremely disappointed with several comments that are evident here as well as observing that several posters here seem to have missed the point e.g. stating that they would prefer to stay home and watch DVDs, wondering if “300” would be captioned, or “I don’t want anything on my head”.
When I read this article, I was excited at the prospects made available to us. In fact, I would like to submit that Regal Cinemas did not have to do this - by simply continuing with Rear Window Captioning, they are in compliance by providing “reasonable accommodations” as required under the American with Disabilities Act or other statutes.
I am personally impressed with the various options being considered. Are they perfect? Of course not, because there are ample areas of improvement. For example, the comment with whether the new devices would allow eyeglasses was very insightful and something that the executives or inventors would appreciate hearing.
But the bottom line: this sets a wonderful precedent for many other corporations in similar fields. If they see that Regal Cinemas has identified a potential market and is taking steps to woo them even more, then that may encourage other similar corporate entities to follow suit. Right now, with each passing year, we are getting further behind due to the advances in technology so we should be encouraging and working with the corporations to help us get brought up to speed.
If I could go to a move theatre and watch the latest Spider-Man movie, even if it meant wearing a weird set of glasses, I would be amenable to that idea. If I had hearing children and they wanted to see the latest Disney movie, I would be absolutely willing to don the world’s oddest set of headgear just so I could really share the experience with them instead of struggling with “goosenecks”.
(Of course, if my children were 13 and up, they would not want to be seen with me much less watch a Disney movie but that’s another topic for me to worry about at a later point).
Scott, the technology is already there. They just don’t use it beacause hearing people aren’t used to seeing captions on the screen, so they complain about it. Ironic that they raved about Passion of Christ, and that was subtitled… Go figure!
What Shane wrote is certainly interesting, but for me, I don’t want to wear headgear, or lug around a gooseneck. I want to plop down in a movie theatre seat and watch a movie in the exact same way hearing people do, with the only difference being is having captions on the screen.
So, yeah. While it’s interesting, I’m not impressed. We’re still not being treated with full equality here by the movie theatres.
DP, you said it perfectly.
I agree with this too.
Last time I saw a movie in the theater was Harry Potter 2 (yikes). I planned a month in advance where to see it with captions (OC), drove an hour, on a Tuesday night… and of course it had been released weeks before this.
Open-captioned system can be used anywhere. It works well at a drive-in. I pick this one.
I have glasses and I would probably just wear those glasses over mine because it’s the least obstructing thing I would have to deal with. How many of you feel like a fool walking through a theater with a gooseneck thing in your hands?! :)
Shane, I have similar experiences here regarding transparent captioning when it comes to DTS-CSS subtitling system (boy, I didn’t know there was such a name). It was sooo difficult reading the transparent white captioning watching Happy Feet with all the white snow in the background! Needless, I was able to get a refund. But I couldn’t get through to someone at that theater to change the captions or make them brighter. I am wondering if you know who I can contact in order to advocate for brighter captions. I also applaud Regal Cinemas for providing options for the audience however their intentions may be misguided.
Lai,
Contact the company that creates the technology (all of the links for all movie captioning companies are provided in my article) and contact the theater chain that you went to. Try to get through to a decision-maker rather than a theater manager.
I remember I had a similar experience with open-captions for the movie Matrix II. There was a part at the end where Neo talks with the “Maker” and the entire background is mostly white. This made it impossible to read the dialogue taking place.
Everyone in the deaf community prefers open captions (Insight or DTS-CSS). But division occurs when we take showtimes into account. The movie industry has made crystal clear that it has no intention of providing open captioning on a widespread basis. This has always been the industry’s position, and it always will be.
So taking into account the “showtimes” factor, the deaf community is divided into three camps when it comes to movie captioning:
1. Those that accept RWC as “good enough.”
2. Those that find RWC unacceptable, but would be receptive to using another sort of personal closed captioning device (such as Shane’s “dream” glasses).
3. Those that find all forms of closed captioning unacceptable and want only open captioning in movie theaters.
We can debate which of these three groups is the biggest, but I think its fair to say that all three groups are of pretty significant size.
I was also at the presentation (and Shane’s report is much more extensive and eloquent than I would have been able to put together). The sense I got from Mr. Smith is that Regal really wants to be able to increase its accessible showtimes, but can’t do it with open captioning.
I agree with Shane that none of these technologies is “there” yet, but one (or more of them) could be greatly improved in two or three years. I talked with a few longtime captioning advocates, and we all agreed that the “glasses” technology had gotten a lot better from the last time it was exhibited in 2000 or 2001.
John S.,
One correction there, Insight Cinemas offers open-captions while DTS-CSS offers closed captions. Here are the three groups:
Insight Cinemas open captions cannot be turned on/off, therefore they are truly open-captions.
The DTS-CSS and the Clozed Caption system that we saw are considered closed-captions because they can be turned on/off and show up on or near the screen.
RWC and the three other technologies (SiteLine, Microvision, and eMagin) are personal captioning devices where the captions are seen only by the person with the necessary equipment provided by the theater.
Also, please include me in group 4 which has a belief that it is possible to create a system that meets the needs of groups 1-3.
It is up to us to continue to urge movie theaters to share the same vision that we have, finding or creating a movie captioning technology that is “there”, as you say.
As I explained in my blog, the technology is available to make it happen (and the Symposium gave us a glimpse of this), we just need to see it through rather than settling for half-measures.
Shane-
There’s a difference between captions in the TV and Movie Theater contexts.
If we were talking about Television, I’d agree with your definitions of “opened” and “closed” captions. But in the movie theater context, the definitions are different.
If the entire audience in the theater can see the captions, then they are considered “open captions.” If only the deaf invidiual can see them, then they are considered “closed captions.”
The reason why the ADA has an exception saying that “open captions are not required” is because the movie industry didn’t want to have to show captioning to an entire audience. So trying to classify DTS-CSS as “closed captioning” doesn’t work because captions that are visible to the entire audience is pretty much what the movie industry is trying to prevent when they convinced Congress to include the “no open captions” clause in the ADA.
The inventors of RWC (and CloZed Captions, and Sightline, etc.) are all trying to find a way to bring the captions to the deaf invidual without “bothering” the rest of the audience with captions. In the DC movie theater lawsuit, we ended up with RWC because (1) it was (and pretty much still is) the best form of closed captioning available and (2) the ADA only requires closed-captioning accessibility in theaters.
Some objectors to the settlement in the DC movie captioning case tried to argue that DTS-CSS was really “closed captioning,” but Judge Kessler didn’t agree with them (and to be honest, she’s right).
So again, we’re never going to get widespread open captioning (i.e., captions that the entire audience can see). The opposition from the theaters is just too strong, and the law just isn’t on our side. Installing DTS-CSS on a widespread basis just won’t happen. Even if theaters go completely digital and you can turn on the captions just by pressing a button (like on a DVD), the theaters will still not do so on a widespread basis.
If we want to be able to get widespread captioning accessibility in theaters, it will have to be through a (personal) closed captioning device. I wish it were different, but that’s the way it is.
Shane, John S. was involved in a lawsuit a few years back about captions in movie theaters so I think he knows what he’s talking about. :>
I recall that there was a great deal of controversy about the lawsuit back then. For example, the Coalition for Movie Captioning made a number of points which I thought were valid:
http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp.....p;b=181283
Additionally, Shane gave testimony in the same case to which you are referring, so his knowledge should not be underestimated either.
Hi Jt!
If you (or anyone) would like to see the Plaintiffs’ Response to the Coalition for Movie Captioning’s objections to the movie captioning lawsuit, please send me an email at stantonj@howrey.com.
I will forward you the paper that we filed in response to the link that you posted. It addresses each of the objections that the CMC made.
Yes, it is definitely good that Regal’s collecting the “voice of the customer” data. Understanding customer’s needs is an important step in developing a (almost) satisfied service. Kudos to Regal Cinemas.
WAD and John S.,
Thanks for your comments. WAD, I agree that Regal is taking a tremendous and positive step forward by gathering consumer data and seeking to provide the best service possible.
John S., I am also happy that Mr. Smith and Regal Cinemas really want to “be able to increase its accessible showtimes” and technology can be greatly improved in the near future, perhaps within 2-3 years. We both saw this potential at the Symposium.
We’ll all stop quibbling over semantics and preferred technologies in the near future if all movie theaters follow, and go beyond, Regal’s lead. The movie theaters have the clout to push for better and more innovative technologies that meet the entire community’s needs.
One more thing, you said, “Installing DTS-CSS on a widespread basis just won’t happen. Even if theaters go completely digital and you can turn on the captions just by pressing a button (like on a DVD), the theaters will still not do so on a widespread basis.”
There is a similar problem with the RWC system. If you check the theaters that were required to install the system as a result of your AMC lawsuit in the DC Metro area, not all of them show captioned movies on a regular basis (or even at all). I check captioned movie listings weekly for DeafDC.com.
For a list of the movies included in the lawsuit (settled in 2004), go to:
http://ncam.wgbh.org/news/mopixdc.html
In a perfect world, every theater would have OC. But unfortunately, OC, from what I understand, interrupts the movie experience for the majority.
The glasses are intriguing. I’d be perfectly fine wearing them especially when knowing I could go to any theater, anywhere for whichever movie.
Regal will get my business as will any other socially responsible company. Kudos.
One idea I have is the use of a personal captioning handheld device that would beam captions onto the screen, but wouldn’t be visible to anyone else, because the captions would be designed to be only seen from your field of perspective. So, maybe an assigned row of seats where that viewing of captions could be possible?
If they could figure out a way to do that, it would be the answer to everything!!!
That would be a way to satisfy all three groups I outlined above!!! *smile*
John S., you seem knowledgeable about this, so I have a question for you. I feel kinda naive asking it, but here goes. I “get” that people who hear don’t want to see the captions on the screen. I also “get” that open captions are the best way to meet the needs of deaf moviegoers. These two polar needs cannot be reconciled, is what you’re saying.
Here’s the naive part of my question. Why is it not possible to set aside one room in one theater (like in those humungous multiplex theaters) that has a movie with open captions running all the time? The room doesn’t have to be large.
I gather that there is an economic motive at the root of the industry decision not to show at least one open captioned movie throughout the day at selected theaters. But a lot of the time, the theaters showing the less popular movies are practically empty anyway. What’s the difference? Is there any data showing the amount of business gained from the open-captioned movies vs the RWC?
I’d go to a movie every week if I could go to an open-captioned one. I went to one with RWC once. I hated it and will never do it again. As far as I’m concerned, it’s open-captions or nothing. Makes me nostalgic for the good old days when the deaf community would gather in a community center together to view captioned movies.
Hi Curious Eyes!
You’re right- it is an economic decision on the part of the movie theaters not to dedicate screens (even a single screen in a mulitplex) to full-time open captioned showings.
I was one of the plaintiffs in the DC movie theater lawsuit against AMC and Loew’s. After a few years of litigation, the theaters were told us that they wanted to settle the case. We agreed in settlement discussions that the theaters would make 12 screens in their DC theaters “caption accessible.”
We asked (begged, even) them to designate some screens (even one screen) to open captioning–either Insight or DTS-CSS. They said no. They told us that it would be a big financial loss for them if they had even one screen dedicated to open-captioning (either Insight or DTS-CSS) because hearing people would just boycott that screen. So that’s how we ended up with 12 screens with closed-captioning (i.e., RWC) in DC from the lawsuit.
And there’s no doubt in my mind that the same thing happened in the other captioning lawsuits in NY and NJ. I’m sure that the Attorneys General tried to get some screens dedicated to open captioning, and that the theaters refused to do so. So… RWC was installed.
Regal Theaters has been very good about showing open captioned movies (either Insight or DTS-CSS) during the week. But they’re far less willing to show them during premium times (such as Friday and Saturday evenings) when they expect to make most of their money. And even during the weekly open captioned showings, Mr. Smith said that Regal found that the open-captioned showings were less-attended than comparable showings of comparable movies.
I’d certainly encourage you (and everyone) to continue attending the open captioned showings, even if they are Monday through Thursday. But if you want to see movies on Friday and Saturday evenings, then chances are that it will have to be at a closed-captioned showing (either with RWC or with some future personal captioning device that’s “still in the works” today).
John S., I guess I’ll just have to take the theaters’ word for it that they lost money when showing open-captioned movies. I still feel somewhat skeptical, because of the number of nearly-empty theaters I’ve seen in the multi-plexes at non-peak times. If the theaters were so concerned about losing money because of empty rooms, how come those films continue to play for a few people, when they could be showing OC films to play for a few people? An empty room is an empty room. Theaters depend on the Friday and Saturday night crowds to make their money, and I don’t have a problem with that. I’d be perfectly happy to go to an OC movie Sunday through Thursday, but there aren’t any.
This whole situation is about fairness. It’s not fair to ask theaters to lose money showing OC movies. It’s also not fair that deaf viewers should settle for an unsatisfactory accommodation of their viewing needs like the RWC. Just because we are small in number and no one could make a living serving our needs.
Why not do what the telephone companies do and collect a small surcharge — like 5 cents — that could be put in a shared fund and paid out to the participating theaters who want to provide open captioned movies but can’t because of the cost? OK, y’all can stop laughing now. Obviously, I’m not a business person.
That’s an excellent point there, Curious Eyes. Whenever I go to the theater, it doesn’t matter if the movie is open captioned or not, there are always large areas of empty seats. Sometimes with less than half a dozen viewers all together.
Also, in the OC movies, I see more hearing than deaf viewers…there seem to be a lot of hearing people who don’t mind captions.
It’s encouraging that movie theaters are considering different technologies for making first-run films accessible to deaf movie-goers, and I commend them for it. Hopefully, their next efforts will be an improvement over RWC. May I also suggest that a good test of the new technologies will be to require executives, engineers, and their families go to a movie with the sound off and try it out for themselves first. That way, they will experience first-hand what it’s like to have to depend on those gadgets for access.
What kind of irks me, though, is that there is already a technology that everyone loves — open captions. I have yet to hear of a single deaf moviegoer who does not prefer them above all other accessibility options. RWC is better than nothing, but nobody really likes them or prefers them over open captions.
I accuse movie theaters of putting their bottom line above real accessibility. Just how much money is “lost” on a nearly empty theater showing movies without captions, vs. those with captions?
I checked fomdi.com last evening to see what’s showing. There are two Regal theaters in my area showing open-captioned movies. One offering is “Ghostrider.” Oh, good — I’ve been wanting to see that one. And what times is it showing? 2:45pm and 10:55pm. On a school night. Accessible? Yeah, right. And of course, nothing open-captioned on a Friday or Saturday. Honestly … and theaters wonder why nobody shows up for the open-captioned movies. Here is a good example of a theater obeying the letter, but not the spirit, of the law. I think they can do better, don’t you?
C.E.,
You made a valid point on open-captioned issue.
Obviously, it depends on the location. In Rochester, films are being shown on an average of four different time slots everyday for several years. We have a watchdog here who’s barking constantly.
Amen, CE. That’s exactly my gripe as well. And I think having the business persons in charge experiencing it first hand is an excellent idea.
To me, this whole thing really is a lip service to accessibility. That’s why I’m staying home and watching DVDs!
Theory here: if movie theatre shows more foreign films with subtitle, then they will see a decrease in the number of open-captioned (for deaf film goers) complaints reported.
Yup. People just have to get used to it.
I agree - I’ve been facing some problems when I went to watch movies at the movie theratre.
1. I received an e-mail which contains those movies that will be showing with captioned at the movie theratre. I was interested to watch a movie so I made plans to watch it on that specific day. I went to the front cashier and double checked if it is captioned. The cashier mentioned that it is captioned so I bought tickets and got some food to eat while watching the movie. I had to go to other counter to get RWC. I double checked with a guy who works there to confirm that it is captioned. He said, Yes. So I was so excited to watch the movie that I wanted to see it for so long.
I found a seat and set up RWC, etc. Several minutes later, movie has began. Then, suddenly, no captions came up!! I was so angry and had to walk in the dark to the counter (people was puzzled and wasn’t pleasant that I had to block their view to get out) - I went to front desk. . I told them that they told me that it is captioned!! They was puzzled about it and said that they woudl get back to me in few mins so I waited.. then she came up to me and said “I’m sorry it is not captioned” I was so mad… They should know better than that since I asked twice before the movie began. Got my money back.
2. This situation happened at a different movie theratre (not the same place as #1). A friend of mine and I were interested to watch an open captioned movie so. . again, we asked the cashier where we buy ticket, if it is captioned. She was talking on her talker about something which I am not sure about. She said that the caption machine was broken. . Glad we asked that before we bought tickets.. Don’t know if it is true after all. .
I also went to movie theratre (in different state) and I had no problem with RWC. .
Speaking of movies in different states, does anyone have a website for a certain state to see if any OC/RWC movies are showing? In case any of us visit our hometowns, we could enjoy watching with our family/relatives/friends.
And one more thing, while we’re on the subject of movie, I am sure you all have heard of this upcoming PBS documentary, “Through Deaf Eyes” sometime next week. Does anyone know WHO made this documentary and if this person is deaf or not? I’d appreciate some information. Thank you.
try fomdi.com
Hi Rose ~
I’m not sure if the documentary itself is created by a Deaf person, but I do known that there are six or so “mini-documentaries” interwoven into it, which were all created by Deaf filmmakers. There is an interesting preview of it available at the PBS website…www.pbs.org/previews/throughdeafeyes/ I believe is the link.
A few years ago, one theater in my local area had open-captioned movies every Tuesday and Wednesday nights in the evenings between 5 and 7 pm. (Sometimes a second one between 9 and 11 pm.) That was absolutely doable for me. There was always a good turnout at these movies, and a good selection of movies too. For a while, I stopped going to this theater because began showing R-rated movies with lots of blood, gore, and violence. Pardon me for being wimpy, but I don’t think watching people getting mowed down with machine guns is entertainment. Next thing I know, that movie theater is no longer showing any open-captioned movies at all. And this is an area with a large concentration of deaf people.
A variation of the theme above: I’d like to see movie theaters do a much better job of marketing their open-captioned movies to the deaf community. For example: if you go to a local theater’s web site, it’s very, very difficult to spot any mention of an OC movie. These web sites like to put “OC” in microscopic-size print, if it’s there at all. What’s up with that, anyway? Are they trying to hide something? How about putting the info in the newspaper advertisements? How about making it possible for deaf viewers to get easy access to listings, like via a newsletter or a button to press for OC listings? Other theaters don’t want to differentiate between OC, CC, and RWC, as if they’re all the same. They’re not. How about, when you go to the box office, there’s a BIG sign saying open captioned (or RWC)? How about establishing links to local deaf agencies about captioned movies?
Seems to me that with today’s media technologies, like the internet, text messaging, email, etc., it should be easier than ever to spread the word that captioning is available.
Off the point, but is anyone as frustrated as I am about JetBlue endlessly hawking their individual TVs and forgetting to mention (unless you navigate to a specific page on their website) that closed captioning isn’t offered?
Yeah, that frustrates me too as well. What’s the point of enjoying a service like that when it’s not captioned?
me too! Especially since those TV programs on JetBlue are ALREADY closed-captioned. But then, we also know what a high premium JetBlue places on the comfort of their customers, making them wait inside a plane for 11 hours. *scoffs*
very interesting post and discussion. i am also a bit skeptical that it can’t be financially feasible to show open captioned screenings at least once a week in a city like dc.
anyway, as hearing people get more used to captioning they (we) won’t mind it as much. at a lot of health clubs the tvs have closed captioning on at all times, and no one seems to mind that.
don’t the theaters make most of their money off of concessions anyway?
If you fly foreign international airline, it is likely you will be able to watch a (foreign, especially) movie with subtitles! My husband did that last summer and he enjoyed it.
That happened to me two years ago when I flew on Air France–there were foreign movies with subtitles. I quite enjoyed those.
A friend of mine read my blog and the subsequent comments, and shared these thoughts with me:
“What bothers me most is the sense of defeat. I feel defeat anytime someone says that the law does not require open captions, especially when they define open captions broadly to mean anytime captions can be seen by everyone in the room. I feel defeat anytime someone says that the law does not require open captions, especially when they don’t say that the “law” they are talking about is not the one the Congress passed (the ADA), but a single statement in the history that preceded the ADA, a statement that was, unfortunately, reiterated by a federal agency (not Congress) in the guidelines to the regulations it wrote to implement the ADA.
I feel defeat anytime someone says movie theaters will never widely display captions on-screen, even though that is an effective and the most convenient and most desired way to view captions…just like hearing people have high quality, effective, and convenient subtitles when they need them. I feel defeat anytime someone says hearing people will be distracted by captions on-screen, even though I see captions turned on TVs in public places and watched and appreciated by hearing people and I see subtitles on-screen (in virtually every audiovisual medium) in English when hearing people do not understand the English or other language spoken.
I feel defeat by our low expectations of hearing people. I feel defeat when people think hearing people are somehow entitled to have captions or subtitles when it benefits them, and are somehow also entitled to say no captions when those captions benefit a deaf or hard of hearing person. I feel defeat anytime someone says the law does not support us, because I believe it does. “
Shane, actually, your friend’s problem with the ADA is with the ADA itself and not the implementation of it by a federal agency. Congress did not, in the ADA, require that open captioned movies be required.
During the legislative debate, the issue of whether movies should be open captioned was discussed. Congress heard testimony from both the movie industry itself and the owners and operators of movie houses (in John Stanton’s example, Regal Movie Theaters). The decision was made not to require movie theaters and their owners and operators to show open captioned movies. For one thing, the owners and operators of movie theaters do not produce the movies that they show and instead only, essentially, rent the movie film for a short time period from the movie companies itself. For that reason, Congress believed that it made little sense to require the owners and operators of movie theaters to caption the movies that they show. I believe that movie theaters were “encouraged” to do so although not required.
Congress also heard testimony from the movie industry itself (Paramount, Universal, Disney, etc.). These companies have consistently said that the “experience” of seeing movies in theaters would be fundamentally altered if they were required to put in open captions in all movies. Congress chose to believe the movie industry (it didn’t hurt that the movie industry has deep pockets) and did not require such a drastic change in our nation’s movie industry. I am also sure that there were a lot of people in Congress that were hesitant about open captions in all movie theaters since there are, believe it or not, people who hate captions in foreign movies.
At any rate, the movie industry has consistently made this argument and Congress has chosen, in its infinite wisdom, not to address this issue in the 15 plus years since the ADA was enacted. Without any statement for support for such a requirement, no federal agency will impose such a requirement in the first place. (It is possible, although, highly unlikely that a federal agency would implement a rule that goes against the legislative history of the ADA, but that agency would almost certainly lose in the federal courts. So, why go through an expensive litigation that will end up in a potentially embarrassing loss over a rule that threatens to piss off their congressional masters, who of course, will be acting at the behest of the movie industry.)
Now, Congress will not revisit this issue without a groundswell of support for open captions in movies. I have not seen any mention of this particular issue from our deaf organizations, notably NAD or even AGB. Perhaps John would know better about the attitudes of these organizations about the open captions issue, since he actually had the balls to participate in the lawsuit and has delved deeply in the issue. However, I do know that NAD and AGB haven’t been very visible (although I could be wrong) on this issue in the last decade or more. Perhaps they don’t think that they can prevail against the deep pockets of the movie industry. Who knows?
Even if the other person has money, I have sufficient faith in the American people to know what is right and what is wrong, and if we can convince the American people that providing open captions in all theaters at all times is the right thing to do, that will happen. However, you do need to demonstrate a mastery of political skills and sufficient public relations which I don’t see our deaf organiza